1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10951 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 34382 OF 2010)

THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

CENTURY TEXTILES & INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10953 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 29377 OF 2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8951 OF 2011

A N D

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8342 OF 2009

J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J.

Judgment and order dated August 02, 2010 passed by the High

Court of Chhattisgarh in Writ Appeal No. 42 of 2008, which was filed by

Century Textiles & Industries Limited, is the subject matter of challenge

in Civil Appeal Nos. 10951 and 10953 of 2016.  These appeals are by

2

both the parties.  The aforesaid writ appeal was filed by Century Textiles

& Industries Limited against the judgment dated March 11, 2008 passed

by the learned Single Judge of the said High Court in Writ Petition (Civil)

No. 1909 of 2007 filed by it in which the Power Grid Corporation of India

Limited was the main  contesting respondent.   Since both the parties

have challenged the impugned order, for the sake of clarity, we would

refer Century Textiles & Industries Limited as the 'writ petitioner' and the

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited as the 'Power Grid'.

2) The writ petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of cement.  It is having

its  cement  manufacturing  unit  at  Baikunth.   Limestone is  one of  the

minerals which is required for manufacturing cement and to faciliate the

supply thereof, the State of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the

'State Government') had granted the writ petitioner mining lease in the

vicinity of the manufacturing unit.  For this purpose, the writ petitioner

had submitted mining plan, duly approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines

(for short, 'IBM'), Government of India, of the area of 74.843 hectares at

village Tulsi and Bahesar.  The lease period is 30 years.  There is a

registered lease deed dated September 30, 2002 executed between the

writ petitioner and the State Government.  Thereafter, the writ petitioner

had submitted an application for modification of the mining plan, which

was also approved on January 14, 2005 by the Government of India,

subject to certain conditions.

3

3) The  Power  Grid,  which  is  a  Government  of  India  Undertaking,  is

primarily engaged in the work of providing framework for the distribution

and  transmission  of  electricity  generated  by  various  generating

companies throughout the country.  In a way, it is discharging function

which  is  in  public  interest.   It  is  well-known  that  India  is  an  energy

deficient country, notwithstanding rapid expansion in this direction in the

last few years, and particularly after the entry of private sector, insofar as

production of electricity is concerned.  Still, there are many households

where  lighting  of  even  electrical  bulb  is  a  dream.   Moreover,  the

socio-economic  development  of  the  country  depends  on  this  critical

infrastructure. Keeping in view these parameters, one of the objectives

of the Power Grid is to transmit the energy to remote areas.

4) At the time when the aforesaid mining lease dated September 30, 2002

was executed in favour of  the writ  petitioner, there existed a 400 KV

transmission line outside the boundary of the existing mining lease of

237.003 hectares and the said transmission line (Sipat – Raipur) was to

run parallel along the existing lines.  In fact, this transmission line was

completed and commissioned by the Power Grid in November 1999,

work whereof had commenced in the year 1996.

5) Since the Power Grid had to lay the transmission lines parallel to the

existing lines to erect towers for laying of the said transmission lines, it

4

was observed that a part thereof was going over the land which was

leased out  to  the  writ  petitioner  for  mining  purposes.   Notice  in  this

behalf was served by the Power Grid to the writ petitioner on October

03, 2006 for erection of the said towers.  At the same time, excavation

work for erection of towers also started.  In this notice, it was inter alia

mentioned  that  400  KV  Sipat-Raipur  transmission  line  would  pass

through the property leased out to the writ petitioner for mining.  The writ

petitioner  replied  to  the  said  notice  vide  its  communication  dated

October 18, 2006 pointing out that the area earmarked for excavation

and erection of towers by the Power Grid comes under mining lease

area  and there was a  possibility  that  the tower  to  be  put  would  get

damaged due to blasting operation done at the mines as the area comes

under the danger zone.  In these circumstances, the Power Grid was

requested to relocate the area for construction of tower, which should be

far away from the leased area.

6) However, as the Power Grid did not accede to the request of the writ

petitioner, the writ  petitioner  approached the High Court  by filing  the

aforesaid writ petition stating that the three towers in the mining area, as

also the adjacent area to the mining area proposed to be constructed by

the Power Grid with  high tension electricity, line would force the writ

petitioner to stop mining in the area nearby the proposed towers as it

would not be able to do any blasting for the purpose of mining.  It was

5

contended  that  if  the  towers  are  allowed  to  be  erected  on  the  land

covered by the mining lease, the writ petitioner would be precluded from

carrying out mining over the adjacent area of towers of 500 mts. as per

the relevant provisions of law (to which we shall advert to at appropriate

stage)  and  it  would  seriously  jeopardise  the  operations  of  the  writ

petitioner.  It was contended that the mining area carries reserve of 10

million tonnes of limestone which is needed for manufacture of cement

in the cement plant of the writ petitioner.  It was, thus, prayed in the writ

petition that the Power Grid be not allowed to erect any tower over the

mining lease area and reallocate the same.

7) The Power Grid contested the writ petition by filing its counter affidavit.

Maintainability of the writ petition was questioned on the ground that the

relief claimed in the writ petition is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction

under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.  It was further

stated  that  the  Power  Grid  is  a  Central  Transmission  Utility  of  the

country.  It undertakes transmission of electric power through Inter-State

Transmission System to establish and operate Regional and National

Power  Grids.   Sipat  Generation  Scheme is  to  come up  and surplus

power of Eastern Region would be pooled through 400 KV Sipat-Raipur

Transmission line for dispersal of surplus generation of power in Wester

Region.  Length of the above corridor is 148 kms. and estimated cost of

the project is Rs.199 crores.  Eighty five percent of the work has already

6

been completed with an investment of Rs.170 crores.  Out of 400 towers

to be erected, 390 towers have already been erected.  The tower line

under construction runs parallel to the 400 KV Korba-Raipur power line

which  is  in  existence  since  1999.   The  writ  petitioner  has  obtained

leasehold right in the year 2002 and over and across their  leasehold

land, Korba-Raipur transmission line already existed and even then they

could carry on their mining activities.  They have obtained the leasehold

rights  without  obtaining  clearance  certificate  from  the  Electrical

Inspector.  The map submitted by the writ petitioner for obtaining mining

lease  was  submitted  without  showing  the  existence  of  400  KV

Korba-Raipur  transmission  line  established  by the  Power  Grid  in  the

year 1999.  The writ petitioner has its explosive magazine building in the

same area and blasting near the magazine area is also prohibited.

8) The learned Single Judge, after hearing the writ petitioner, dismissed the

writ petition filed by it holding that under the relevant provisions of the

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Electricity Act, 2003, and Rules framed

thereunder, the Power Grid was within its right to erect those towers.  On

facts also the learned Single Judge took the view that since the work

had started long ago, and even earlier to the grant of mining lease in

favour of  the writ  petitioner, and further that  out  of  410 towers to be

erected, 408 towers had already been erected, it would not be possible

at  that  stage  to  change  the  alignment.   These  factual  aspects  are

7

summarised in para 25 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and

we would like to reproduce the same here at this stage:

“25.   From  the  pleading  of  the  respective  parties,  it  is observed that:

(i)   there  is  already  existing  400  KV Transmission  Line from  Korba  to  Raipur  erected  in  the  year  1999  at  a distance of  about  100 meters  from the proposed power line.  The petitioner cannot do blasting operations in the vicinity of  300 meters from the existing power line also, thus only 100 meters strip of lease hold land and only a short span of two towers would be affected by erection of the new transmission line;

(ii)   The Explosive Magazine Building of the company is also situated in the same area.   That  also prohibits  the petitioner  from  using  explosives  in  its  vicinity  for  the purpose of mining lime stone;

(iii)   Rule  83(2)  of  the  Indian  Electricity  Rules,  1956 prohibits blasting for any purpose within 300 meters from the boundary of  sub-station or  from the high voltage of extra-high voltage electric supply lines or tower structure without the consultation of the owner of such sub-station or electric  supply  lines  or  tower  structures  and  in  case  of mining lease hold area, without the written permission of the Chief Inspector of Mines or the Electrical Inspector of Mines;

(iv)  Out of 410 towers to be erected in a span of 149.43 km., 408 towers have already been erected by respondent No.1 and only two towers remains to be erected so as to complete the project; and

(v)  The transmission line under construction runs parallel to the other existing line commissioned in the year 1999 and there are field limitation as also technical limitations enumerated by the respondent No.1 in Para 5.16 of their affidavit making the change in the said route alignment of Sipat-Raipur transmission completely impossible.”

9) The writ  petitioner challenged the said order in appeal.   The Division

Bench, vide the impugned judgment, has not granted the relief insofar

8

as changing the site of erection of towers is concerned.  At the same

time, it has taken the view that once the towers are erected on the area

as planned, which falls within the mining lease area, it would cause loss

not only to the writ petitioner but even to the State Government which

will be deprived of royalty.  A direction is given to the District Collector to

work out the compensation that would be payable to the writ petitioner.

It is further observed that if the District Collector comes to the conclusion

that compensation is also payable to the State Government, he would

refer  the  matter  to  the  State  Government  for  constituting  a  High

Powered Committee for arriving at the quantum of compensation.

10) Insofar as the writ petitioner is concerned, it is not entirely satisfied

with the aforesaid outcome as, according to it, the Power Grid should

not be allowed to erect any towers over the mining area.  That is the

reason for filing the special leave petition by the writ petitioner, out of

which  the  instant  Civil  Appeal  arises.  Insofar  as  the  Power  Grid  is

concerned, it has challenged the direction of the High Court in referring

the  matter  to  the  District  Collector  for  quantifying  the

compensation/damages to be paid to the writ petitioner as, according to

it,  no  such  direction  could  be  given  and,  in  any  case,  the  District

Collector has no authority to decide the issue of compensation.

11) Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, and Mr.

9

S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior counsel, argued on behalf of the Power

Grid, whereas Mr. Shrivastava, learned senior counsel, argued for the

writ petitioner, and Mr. Gilda, Additional Advocate General, appeared for

the State Government.

12) We may mention here that two more writ petitions were filed in the

High Court: one by Mr. Ram Naresh Singh and the other by Ajay Munjal

Memorial  Trust.   Insofar  as  the  case  of  Mr.  Ram  Naresh  Singh  is

concerned, 524 towers are constructed in District Sasaram in the State

of  Bihar  and  only  one  tower  is  placed  on  the  land  belonging  to

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 therein.  The High Court of Patna has decided

the case in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that no

notice was issued to them to seek their prior consent.   Likewise, in the

case of Ajay Munjal Memorial Trust, transmission lines laid down by the

Power Grid covered the area of 418 kms.  One such tower is placed on

the land belonging to the said Trust.  Here also, the challenge was made

by the appellant on the ground that their prior consent was not taken.

However, in this behalf, the High Court of Jharkhand has repelled the

challenge.

It is for this reason that Civil Appeal Nos. 8951 of 2011 and 8342 of 2009

were also heard along with the main case and the counsel appearing for

the respective parties made their  submissions,  which have also been

taken into consideration.

10

13) We first take up the case of the writ petitioner – Century Textiles &

Industries Ltd., i.e. Civil Appeal No. 10953 of 2016.

In  this  case,  as  noticed  earlier,  the  learned  Single  Judge  while

dismissing the writ petition took into consideration certain admitted facts,

which were not disputed by the writ petitioner before the Division Bench

or in this Court.  First important fact is that the transmission line from

Korba to Raipur with 400 KV had already been erected in the year 1999.

Thus, this transmission line was in existence when the writ  petitioner

was  given  the  mining  lease  of  the  area  in  question.   The  said

transmission line is hardly at a distance of 100 mts. from the proposed

power line.  As per the provisions of Rule 83(2) of the Indian Electricity

Rules, 1956, no blasting operation can be carried out in the vicinity of

300 mts.  from the existing power line.   Effect  of  this was,  insofar  as

proposed power line is concerned, only 100 mts. strip of leasehold land

and only a short span of two towers is going to be affected by erection of

the new transmission line.  Other important factor to be taken note of is

that out of 410 towers which were to be erected over an area of 149.43

kms.,  408  towers  had  already  been  erected  by  the  Power  Grid  to

complete the project in question when the writ petition was filed by the

writ  petitioner.  One more significant  fact is that  the transmission line

under  construction  runs  parallel  to  the  existing  Kolba-Raipur

transmission line which was erected in the year 1999.  This imposes field

11

limitation as well as technical limitations in making a change in the route

alingment  of  Sipat-Raipur  transmission  line.   It  could  also  not  be

disputed that the transmission project is of national importance as it is

going to benefit public at large, not only in the State of Chhattisgarh but

various  other  States  through  which  the  aforesaid  transmission  line

passes through.  Project was at the verge of completion when the writ

petition was decided by the learned Single Judge and it has since been

completed.

14) It is also of significance that the Division Bench has not differed

with the aforesaid factual position, including the fact that the project in

question is in public interest and, therefore, allowed the completion of

the project.  Notwithstanding these findings of the High Court, both by

the Single Judge as well  as the Division Bench, argument of the writ

petitioner is that the erection of two towers on the mining area leased

out to the writ petitioner is going to render a large chunk of mining area

unusable.  It is not only going to affect the supply of limestone to the writ

petitioner for the manufacture of cement, thereby causing financial loss

to  the writ  petitioner, even the State  Government  would  be suffering

financially in the form of royalty. It is, thus, argued that such a loss is

also  of  public  nature  not  only  in  financial  terms,  but  in  making  the

valuable  mineral  available  for  production  of  cement,  which  is  an

essential commodity.  On this basis, it is argued that realignment of the

12

two  towers  is  a  better  option,  which  would   sub-serve  both  the

competing public interests, one projected by the writ petitioner and the

other by the Power Grid, as cost of realignment of the overhead lines

was barely 4.50 crores as against the loss to the State Exchequer in₹

the sum of 120 crores and to the writ petitioner in the neighbourhood of₹

690 crores and, therefore, action of the Power Grid is arbitrary, unjust₹

and  unfair  as  well.   It  is  further  submitted  that  there  is  violation  of

Sections 68 and 69 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as Rules 3 and 10

of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules,

2006') in laying down the overhead lines and, therefore, the High Court

erred in law in permitting the same.

15) In order to appreciate the contentions of the writ  petitioner, it  is

necessary to have a glimpse of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003

as well as Rules on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Shrivastava.

16) Sections 68 and 69 of the Electricity Act, 2003 fall in Part VIII with

the  caption  'WORKS'.   These  two  provisions  directly  deal  with  the

overhead lines.  As per Section 68, an overhead line can be installed or

kept  installed  above  ground  'with  prior  approval  of  the  Appropriate

Government'.  'Appropriate Government' is defined under Section 2(5) of

the Electricity Act, 2003 and it is not in dispute that in the instant case, it

would be the Central Government as it is the Central Government which

13

is  the  Appropriate  Government  in  respect  of  a  generating  company

wholly  or  partly owned by it  and Power  Grid is  a company which is

owned by the Central Government.  The argument was that no such

prior approval from the Central Government was obtained in terms of the

aforesaid provision.

17) We find  that  this  assertion  is  factually  incorrect.   The  learned

Single Judge specifically noted that the Power Grid had obtained prior

approval  of  the  Central  Government  under  Section  68(1)  of  the

Electricity Act, 2003.  Though, an attempt was made that this finding is

incorrect, we do not agree with the said submission of the writ petitioner

as the learned ASG pointed out to us the document containing such an

approval.   

18) Another  submission  made  was  that  permission  of  the  writ

petitioner  was not  obtained which was needed as per  Rule 3 of  the

Rules, 2006.  Rule 3(a) reads as under:

“3.  Licensee to carry out works. - (1) A licensee may -  

(a)  carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works in, through, or against, any building, or on,  over  or  under  any  land  whereon,  whereover  or whereunder  any  electric  supply-line  or  works  has  not already  been  lawfully  laid  down  or  placed  by  such licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land.”

19) In the instant case, the aforesaid Rule is not applicable in view of

14

Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which reads as under:

“164. Exercise of powers of Telegraph Authority in certain cases.-The  Appropriate  Government may,  by  order  in writing, for the placing of electric lines or electrical plant for the  transmission  of  electricity  or  for  the  purpose  of telephonic  or  telegraphic  communications  necessary  for the proper co-ordination of works, confer upon any public officer,  licensee  or  any  other  person  engaged  in  the business of supplying electricity under this Act, subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Appropriate Government may think fit to impose and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885), any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under that Act with respect to the placing of telegraph lines and posts for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained, by the Government or to be so established or maintained.”

20) It is not in dispute that in exercise of powers under the aforesaid

provision,  the  Appropriate  Government  has  conferred  the  powers  of

Telegraph  Authority  vide  notification  dated  December  24,  2003

exercisable under Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 upon the Power Grid.  It

may also be mentioned that a Central Transmission Utility (CTU) is a

deemed  licensee  under  the  second  proviso  to  Section  14  of  the

Electricity Act, 2003.  Power Grid is a Central Transmission Utility and is,

therefore,  a  deemed  licensee  under  the  Electricity  Act,  2003.   This

coupled with the fact that Power Grid is treated as Authority under the

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, it acquires all such powers which are vested

in a Telegraph Authority under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act,

1885 including power to eliminate any obstruction in the laying down of

power transmission lines.  As per the provisions of the Indian Telegraph

Act, 1885, unobstructed access to lay down telegraph and/or electricity

15

transmission  lines  is  an  imperative  in  the  larger  public  interest.

Electrification of villages all over the country and availability of telegraph

lines are the most essential requirements for growth and development of

any country, economy and the well-being/progress of the citizens.  The

legislature  has  not  permitted  any  kind  of  impediment/  obstruction  in

achieving this objective and through the scheme of the Indian Telegraph

Act, 1885 empowering the licensee to lay telegraph lines, applied the

same, as it is, for laying down the electricity transmission lines.  Powers

of the Telegraph Authority conferred by Sections 10, 15 and 16 of the

Indian Telegraph Act,  1885,  stand vested in  and  are  enjoyed by the

Power Grid.  These provisions are reproduced below:

“10.  Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts.—

The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along, or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property:  

Provided that—

(a)  the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers conferred  by  this  section  except  for  the  purposes  of  a telegraph  established  or  maintained  by  the  Central Government, or to be so established or maintained;

(b)   the Central  Government  shall  not  acquire  any right other than that of  user only in the property under, over, along,  across,  in  or  upon  which  the  telegraph  authority places any telegraph line or post; and

(c)  except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority, without the permission of that authority; and

16

(d)  in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the  telegraph  authority  shall  do  as  little  damage  as possible,  and,  when  it  has  exercised  those  powers  in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.”

xx xx xx

“15.   Disputes  between  telegraph  authority  and  local authority.—

(1)  If any dispute arises between the telegraph authority and a local authority in consequence of the local authority refusing the permission referred to in section 10, clause (c),  or  prescribing any condition under  section 12,  or  in consequence of the telegraph authority omitting to comply with a requisition made under section 13, or otherwise in respect of the exercise of the powers conferred by this Act, it  shall  be  determined  by  such  officer  as  the  1[Central Government] may appoint either generally or specially in this behalf.

(2)   An appeal  from the  determination  of  the  officer  so appointed  shall  lie  to  the  Central  Government;  and  the order of the Central Government shall be final.”

“16.   Exercise  of  powers  conferred  by  section  10,  and disputes  as  to  compensation,  in  case  of  property  other than that of a local authority.—

(1)  If the exercise of the powers mentioned in section 10 in  respect  of  property  referred  to  in  clause  (d)  of  that section  is  resisted  or  obstructed,  the  District  Magistrate may, in  his  discretion,  order that  the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them.

(2)  If, after the making of an order under sub-section (1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the property, does not give all facilities for their being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).

(3)  If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall,  on  application  for  that  purpose  by  either  of  the

17

disputing  parties  to  the  District  Judge  within  whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him.

(4)   If  any  dispute  arises  as  to  the  persons  entitled  to receive compensation,  or  as to the proportions in which the  persons  interested  are  entitled  to  share  in  it,  the telegraph authority may pay into the  court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount tendered  to  be  sufficient  or  the  amount  has  been determined under  sub-section (3),  that  amount;  and the District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine the persons entitled  to  receive  the  compensation or, as  the case  may  be,  the  proportions  in  which  the  persons interested are entitled to share in it.

(5)  Every determination of a dispute by a  District Judge under sub-section (3), or sub-section (4) shall be final:

Provided that  nothing in this  sub-section shall  affect  the right of any person to recover by suit the whole or any part of any compensation paid by the telegraph authority, from the person who has received the same...”

21) Section  10  of  the  Indian  Telegraph  Act,  1885  empowers  the

Telegraph Authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over,

along or  across and posts in  or  upon any immovable property.  The

provision of Section 10(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 makes it

abundantly clear that while acquiring the power to lay down telegraph

lines, the Central Government does not acquire any right other than that

of user in the property.  Further, Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph

Act,  1885 obliges the Telegraph Authority to ensure that it  causes as

little damage as possible and that the Telegraph Authority shall also be

obliged to pay full compensation to all person interested for any damage

18

sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.   

22) As Power Grid is given the powers of Telegraph Authority, Rule

3(1) of the Rules, 2006 ceases to apply in the case of Power Grid by

virtue  of  execution  clause  contained  in  sub-rule  (4)  of  Rule  3  which

reads as under:

“3(4).  -  Nothing  contained  in  this  rule  shall  effect  the powers conferred upon any licensee under Section 164 of the Act.”

23) We, thus, have no hesitation in rejecting the argument of the writ

petitioner that the impugned action of the Power Grid was contrary to the

provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.

24) We also do not find that the action of the Power Grid, in the given

circumstances, by not shifting the transmission lines was arbitrary. From

the  facts  noted  above,  it  becomes  apparent  that  not  only  it  was

unfeasible to change the alignment as almost entire work had already

been completed by the time the writ petitioner started protesting against

this  move,  even  otherwise,  the  Power  Grid  has  given  sufficient

explanation to point out that all  relevant factors/ aspects were kept in

mind  while  laying  down  the  impugned  transmission  lines.   Such

transmission lines had to be in straight line to the extent possible for

eliminating  loss  of  transmission.   It  is  also  explained  that  electricity

transmission  is  usually  laid  or  crossed  over  agricultural  land  where

19

minimum extent  of  land  gets  utilised  for  erecting  towers  and  where

agricultural activities are not prejudiced/obstructed in any manner.   The

purpose is to avoid buildings, religious places, ponds etc. while laying

down these transmission lines.  It is only when it becomes inevitable that

towers are placed on the private lines to the minimum and least extent

possible.  That is what was tried to achieve in the instant case.  Another

important factor, which needs repetition at this stage is that no blasting is

permissible within 300 mts. from the 400KV line (already existing) or the

tower structure.  Mining of limestone can be taken up by adopting the

methods other than use of explosive/blasting – without damage to the

tower foundation/tower structure or the line, which can be accomplished

by using  jack  hammer/pneumatic  hammer  with  compressor  so  as  to

avoid any damage to the line or tower.  This aspect has also been taken

note of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the judgment

dated March 11, 2008.  The Division Bench did not differ with any of

these findings.

Accordingly,  Civil  Appeal  No.  10953  of  2016  preferred  by  the  writ

petitioner stands dismissed.

25) At  this  stage,  we  deal  with  the  direction  of  the  Division  Bench

regarding compensation payable to the writ petitioner, or for that matter

to the State Government.  In the first instance, no such claim was laid by

the writ petitioner in the writ petition or by the State Government before

20

the High Court.  Furthermore, the High Court could not have given this

task  to  the  District  Collector,  which  is  contrary  to  the  provisions  of

Section 16(c) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 which are extended to

laying down of electricity lines.  As per this provision, such an authority

vests with the District Judge.

26) These are sufficient  reasons to allow Civil  Appeal No. 10951 of

2016 preferred  by the  Power  Grid  by setting  aside  those  directions.

Ordered accordingly.  We make it clear that if the writ petitioner feels that

it is entitled to any compensation, the appropriate course of action is to

file a suit before the concerned District Judge for this purpose.  It would

also be apt to point out at this stage that the Central Government has

framed guidelines dated October 15, 2015 in this behalf which inter alia

provide that the issue of compensation may be resolved having regard

to the mode and manner of assessment of compensation as per the said

guidelines.  Therefore, it would always be open to the writ petitioner to

avail the remedy as per the said guidelines.

27) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8951 OF 2011

This appeal is filed by Power Grid in the case of Ram Naresh Singh.  In

this case, transmission lines are in District Sasaram in the State of Bihar.

The complete work for laying down the transmission lines where 524

overhead towers have been erected by the Power Grid.  Out of these,

21

only 1 tower is located at the land belonging to Ram Naresh Singh.  The

dispute raised is with regard to quantum of compensation and as per the

provisions of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, it  is to be

settled by the  District Judge.  Thus, for all the reasons given above in

the  case  of  Century  Textiles  &  Industries  Limited,  this  appeal  of  the

Power Grid stands allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set

aside.   

28) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8342 OF 2009

The appellant in this case also raised the issue of taking prior consent

from it, as the owner of the land, before laying electricity transmission

lines.   This argument has been rejected by us while dealing with the

appeal of Century Textiles & Industries Limited.  Accordingly, this appeal

is also dismissed.

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J. (R. BANUMATHI)

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 14, 2016.